ant_nio_marques

<p>Bill C takes awesome pictures.<br> Where do birds go when it rains?</p>

<p>Aiui many manufacturers use Sony sensors throughout their whole range, namely Pentax and Nikon. But then what they do with the sensors and make the sensors do is another matter. The processors are usually made in-house.<br> 2015 does seem to be the year of FF Pentax: while in the past folks were just speculating, now there are concrete signs, and the DFA line of lenses wasn't created for nothing. But nothing is guaranteed.<br> Pentax do have a history of trying to squeeze more out of their sensors than the competition, possibly because they have less leverage.<br> I like the K-30 a lot, if I'm allowed to mention a lesser model!</p>

<p>@Glenn, Aperture has been discontinued. Whatever you do, don't base your decisions on its continued development.</p> <p>@Gert, Apple has a habit of removing suboptimal or buggy behaviours in each release (after having wanted about them at least for a year, and often more). But often 3rd party software relies on those to work, either because it's not well written or because of some wrong assumption, or whatever. In those cases, it will break. It's harsh because the user pays the penalty, but as someone working in the software industry and constantly having to fight so people will design their systems well rather than lazily, I can only be glad for it... Adobe and Microsoft software for Mac used to be notoriously poor written, now they're getting better on account of that policy.</p> <p>Compatibility is one reason why I keep Snow Leopard (10.6) around in my laptop that originally came with Leopard (10.5) and might be upgraded to Yosemite (10.10).</p> <p>By contrast, Microsoft used to go to arcane lengths in order to ensure that old 3rd party software relying on old bugs kept working in newer versions. Commendable effort, but misguided in my opinion.</p>

<p>@Eric, you may wish to reread what I wrote. I only wrote it because I do have a thorough understanding of the issues involved, and my earlier comment might have given the impression I was saying they can't do anything right. Your impressions look solid at first sight, but they don't really stand any close scrutiny:</p> <p>- 'Merely Unix with its own skin' is like saying a human being is merely a skeleton with some filling. Unix by itself amounts to very little. Unix by itself amounts to very little, the hard part is what's built on top of it, and it could just as well have been built on top of something other than Unix. In all, Unix within OS X is there mostly as a provider of some low-level services (and an API and some command-line utilities), but most of what matters is independent of it (even the drivers).</p> <p>- OS X and iOS are the same operating system, that's not a small user base at all. When there are complaints, it's because they affect all those folks. If they had a small user base, there would be no statistical chance for complaints.</p> <p>- Each version of OS X has either introduced major features (which then may or may not find their way into the offers of competitors) or significantly improved the previous UX (which is not the same as changing colours, as some believe). I repeat that that has never been done anywhere, by anyone, on a yearly basis. That takes skill, inevitably leads to small issues here and there, but means you usually have some reason for upgrading. Only Google has been doing the same, and they don't have a real desktop OS. By contrast, there is very little (aside from some APIs) Windows 8.1 can do that XP couldn't, whereas the Linux desktop ecosystem (as opposed to the kernel, or server space) is still playing catch-up to XP.</p> <p>- By no conceivable standard does Apple do a worse job than MS or Google or any of the Linux vendors in supplying an operating system. Saying they are 'the worst' means you either have no experience with them, or no experience with any of the others, or just happened to have had very skewed experiences. Or that you're using different standards, but then don't compare them.</p> <p>As to the actual issues with Apple, I pointed them out above. (It would be unfair to signal them out on the user privacy count, no one is doing any better, none of them is to be trusted.)</p>

Craig is right, there is no evidence that Canon ever licensed EF, and there is a statement in an interview that may confirm it didn't. What got me confused was the apparent fact that Sigma did use their reverse engineered version of EF for their own camera bodies. That says nothing about their lenses' compatibility with Canon bodies.

It's not easy to do yearly releases of an operating system (and associated apps) used 24/7 by millions of people, and with major technologies in each release (sometimes only behind the scenes). In fact it's never been done, the only system with more frequent releases is Linux in its many guises and it is hardly ever the first with technological novelties, not to mention that its users are few and they never blame their systems but rather try to fix them on their own. Add to that that Apple's programming paradigm is more or less unique and they had to draw in a very large number of programmers very quickly, and the reason for some issues becomes more clear. In fact I'd wager that the only thing that even enables apple to keep on going is that they control the hardware, which means they know exactly what they must count with. With that said, most of the problems that people have to face seem to be entirely unrelated to the above. Wi-Fi issues since Lion, unexplicable cellular data usage issues since iOS 5 (which is *the* reason for the pathetic battery life on iPhones, which folks always blame on wifi or bt or animations some other innocent), occasional filesystem collapses since at least Mountain Lion... these are not only inexcusable, they're impossible to understand. Not to mention the divers hardware issues over the years that they mostly ignore. The random removal of features in software is something that's been going on for a while. It may result in better products in some contexts, but not here when it's streamlined products we're talking about. Apple used to take very good care to put exactly what they should exactly where it should go, but there have been some blunders lately. Not a fan of the faux leather troupe, I'm not a fan of the flatters either. Let's see what the future holds.

My advice regarding Apple OS's is to upgrade to a major version just before a new one comes out. That way you'll have the issues sorted out and you'll enjoy one extra year of stability and speed. And th reason for upgrading at all is that apps usually drop support for older versions. But within a year of a release, it's unlikely that it becomes mandatory for some app.

Hasn't Sigma actually licensed EF (the protocol, not the physical fit) from Canon to use on its own cameras? Regarding the focal lengths, it's a camera thing, not a lens thing. Since the Canon APS-C is smaller than 35mm film by 1.62x in each dimension, it will only capture the centre of the image circle, so what it will get from a 28mm lens is roughly what a film camera would get from a 45mm one. This isn't a Canon issue, it's a product class issue - Canon, like others, also makes much more expensive digital cameras with a 24x36 sensor.

He's now 'Negative Solutions' and is very cooperative. NB that the holders are basic in thir technology, tho he's always trying to find ways to improve them. Mine came in two halves which fit perfectly to the micron, but you have to find a way to fasten them. What I did was to put some tape along one of the lengths, to work as a hinge, and took care that that was very well aligned. Then, after placing the film, I use a bit of tape on the other length too, but that one needs no special care, anything will do. I have to replace the latter often, but the former holds well for quite a long time. If what you have is very curled film, maybe one option is to fasten the halves permanently and insert the film from one of the edges (there will be a channel for the film between the two halves, quite tight but making it possible to slide the film without much effort. I have to order some holders more, maybe by this time he'll have worked out some solution for the problem of fastening the two halves together.

A lot of the history of Photography revolves around that, Ricardo! Keywords are highlights, shadows, metering, exposing for, ae lock... There probably is something in the Learning section of the site, but I'll let someone who actually knows something about taking photos give the best pointers.

Is there any evidence that N and C don't follow their own internal ideas and schedules, and only care about the competition as an afterthought? I mean, it's Not like TV stations in my country where you can be certain that they sync their commercials.

As I understand it, the problem is just the magnification. The light that reaches the sensor is only a quarter, but the excitable surface is only one quarter as well, so that shouldn't be an issue. What makes it an issue is that that area then has to be magnified 4x, and zooming in stretches light. Of course, the sensor has to be comparatively much better at making use of the light, and that it is otherwise the cameras wouldn't sell. Put it this way: crop the central 17x13mm of your FF. that's what m43 will give you, but with much better quality. Caveat: many m43 people are very touchy freely about their sensor size and will throw in a fit if you mention the words '35mm equivalence'. You can ignore them when they get into that mode. (I have no problem whatsoever enjoying my cameras regardless of their sensor size. For the record, I have no FF digital,)

The $2000 Plustek is needed for medium format, not for 35mm. Doesn't the 4490 go higher than 1200? That looks like a prints resolution, not a transparencies one. Maybe your problem is with the. Technique ather than the tool. But yes, anything short of a drum scanner won't be satisfying. The DSLR route has no infrared cleaning. That writes it off for C41 and E6 material.

<p>You do know that FD lenses use a different mount from the EF found in modern Canon cameras?</p>

<p>@Bob, none of those scanners can attain even 50% of the resolution they claim. Yes, they deliver the pixels, but not the resolving power. It's something you'll have to read a lot about in order to understand.<br> As to the bit depth, none of them can certainly give you anything beyond, say, 36 bits. Yes, they can deliver the bits, but not the precision.<br> In short, those specs are completely meaningless.</p>

<p>@Melissa, I know you've said the camera was on autofocus, but have you accidentally changed the diopter correction on the viewfinder? I don't even know if the 40d has that, but if set wrong it may prevent you from seeing the scene correctly, and affect your handling of the camera, which in turn may explain some of the suboptimal results.</p>

<p>It all depends on what you have to scan.<br> An Epson v700 or v750 is the best of the commercially available flatbeds. It is great to scan large volumes and odd formats. However, it can't hold a candle to what the recent Plusteks and PIE/Reflectas can do. But it may be enough, given the source material. And the recent Plusteks and Reflectas can't match what your Canoscan does. Which, again, may not matter. In fact, the Canoscan, like the Nikons, may give poor results with some emulsions, not because of any fault, but because it is too good for them and brings about issues no one had noticed before (grain aliasing). The Minoltas are awesome, but it's very hard to get them serviced, and again they may be overkill. So…. think a bit about what the scanner will be used for. Odds are something like a flatbed Canoscan 9000 (which has nothing to do with the FS4000), which again can't hold a candle to the Epson, will be more than enough. (The Epson also has the advantage of having a large transparency area, up to 4 strips of 135 film.)</p>

<p>+1 Wouter, as usual.<br> The greatest artists are too busy thinking of art to spend any time worrying about self-promotion.</p>

<p>1. The colours, which are the film's rather than my boring attempts at matching this or that.<br> 2. The texture.<br> 3. The shadows.</p>

I don't see why one would upgrade a 7d unless it were a move to full frame. Otherwise, what's the use? Is the 7d limiting you in any way? I don't like the 7d line, I think we need a cheap full frame more than an expensive APS-C, but from the moment one has one, one might as well keep it. It's hard for me not to see the 7d2 as just an attempt to keep the 7d line relevant after the 70d made the *0d line relevant.

Reread closely what I wrote. There is nothing there about the 6d or the 70d! If you want something at this precise moment, you ought to go with a full frame milc with EVF. Nothing less that that will be satisfying. If you go with less than that, you can even have a Canon EOS-M. Canon supports FD lenses nor more nor less than any other brand - you gain nothing by using a Canon with FD lenses, nor do you lose anything. But at the moment Sony is the one providing full frame milcs with an EVF. If tou dont gp Sony, ir doesnt matter much what you go with. It's not a matter of Canon having dropped the ball. FD is purely mechanical and they just had to evolve. It was in 1987, 17 years ago. If you wanted to keep on using FD, there are film Canons for that. They're old, but FD lenses cannot make use of new features anyway. There's no FD digital body because 1) it would be very limited in what it could do, and 2) one can always use a milc. They could haver made EF with a smaller register than FD, so that a non-optical adapter was possible, only they couldn't have, because they do need the 44mm. If anything, they could have made FD with a longer register back in the 60s, but then they couldn't have used lenses from other brands...

1. The reason FD lenses are difficult to use in non-FD bodies is that the FD flange focal distance is smaller than most of them. That means not only there is no margin to place an adapter, the margin is actually negative. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FILM VS DIGITAL.. 2. Canon ditched the FD mount because they found it suboptimal to put electronics into it. Other brands went the suboptimal way, or had more tolerating mounts to start from. The fact is that any EF lens works fully on any EF body, while the same is not true for other brands. 3. Digital cameras started with sensors that were smaller than film. That meant that the sensor captured only the centre of the image, hence the so called crop factor. Brands started selling lenses that don't give as big an image, but can be cheaper and lighter. Canon called theirs EF-a and made ti só they can't mount on film bodies, or bodies with sensors the size of film, which they couldn't fully cover anyway and might damage by hitting the mirror. Of course, EF-S bodies can use 'old' EF just fine. Here again, other brands chose just to have you look at compatibility tables to know whether your lens and body match or not. 4. Since the sensor in digital cameras can look continuously at the image, unlike film which would become exposed, it became possible to create cameras that can preview the shot without a mirror. As such, their flange focal distance can be much smaller, do for them it's possible to mount almost any old lens via an adapter. Here's your answer: if you want something now, look for 'full frame milc', of which Sony has a few. Being full frame they'll use your lenses' image fully. But notice that the lack of mirror means autofocus (which old lenses don't have anyway) is not as good as on an SLR. Read up a bit on these issues. Don't fall for hype! Don't rush to buy. Don't wait forever for the next big thing

That's a message, arguably, albeit not necessarily what you opened this thread with. But it takes more than a message to make you a messenger - namely, you'd have to be providing novel information. I don't see that you've mentioned any actual fact that was news to anyone. Hence my question.

You still haven't said what you're the messenger of.

>> There was cleric who dedicated his poems to a married woman who could care less about him > I assume you mean couldn't. When the expression appeared, it was 'could care less', it was meant to be ironic with an implied 'but it's on the threshold'. The more logical 'couldn't' was adopted by those who didn't know the irony of the original. But the original still stands.